Though I happily plead to membership, I'm not sure what rank I should be accorded in the "anti-CAM brigade", given my near-legendary failure ever to get promoted in two decades in my current job..! Somehow I think that is more of a pedigree for a cynical old NCO than for an officer.

Ah yes, I had some fun with my old friend George Lewith on More 4 News last week. The video is here, with a few comments on his curious interpretation of evidence.

Perhaps there is some confusion in George's mind between legal action that involves defamation suits (enormously expensive and used largely by very rich crooks to conceal their actions) and the ordinary law of the land embodied in Trading Standards law, the Cancer Act and Advertising Standards. I hope he isn't arguing that these laws should not apply to CAM in the same way they apply to anybody else. In fact they are already biassed in favour of CAM. If you sold strawberry jam that contained no trace of strawberry, Trading Standards would be on you like a ton of bricks, But if you sell Arnica 30C that contains not a trace of Arnica, you have some curious legal loophole that keeps you out of jail. Odd, isn't it?

If you are to be "Captain Jack" then I must insist on being called by my hard-earned title, "Doctor" - just "the Doctor" is fine. I don't want to join any brigades, but will be happy to be an advisor to any Brigadier who needs one.

I'm not sure about this military terminology or that it's productive to frame scientific enquiry in terms of mortal combat. Truth is too easily lost when science becomes about taking sides or declaring winners and losers. It's all so macho.

This is no slight on Jack of Kent and as battle lines have been drawn by the Army of Darkness, he is an excellent military analyst.

Not sure about calling yourself Captain Jack though unless you're a Torchwood fan.

This isn't really closely related to this post, but something that made me curious. I was following a discussion on Stephen Curry's blog you were involved in where you took pains to point out that "English" libel law was to blame. What is the status of Scottish libel law - is it any more reasonable, or would it serve as a likely new refuge for the more frivolous breed of libel claimant if English law were to be changed?